a non-physical thing

[Doreen]

At what point does not noticing patters become a delusion?

An underlying value/judgement in the skeptic or even the empiricist's position is that one should be conservative about beliefs. Unless you can prove it - or offer some amount of support for it, you should avoid a certain belief. But avoid beliefs can also be idiotic. One can see the world as just so many Seurat-like points, and refuse to acknowledge gestalts in general until one receives proof of whatever kind.

We need a word for something pathological which is in the opposite direction of delusion.

Delusion: belief in something without enough justification.
_______: the pathological reluctance to notice patterns.

 

[PsychoticEpisode]

Delusion: belief in something without enough justification.
_______: the pathological reluctance to notice patterns.

There's a lot more than just patterns so I'd describe the person as being:

Habiluctarial: habitually struggling

 

[parmalee]

We need a word for something pathological which is in the opposite direction of delusion.

Delusion: belief in something without enough justification.
_______: the pathological reluctance to notice patterns.

Heh. One brand perhaps:

Funes the memorious-like: the pathological reluctance to notice patterns.

(German is a far better language for these things.)

 

[wesmorris]

At what point does not noticing patters become a delusion?

What if you lack the experience or capacity to recognize them? I think most patterns appear rather differently or not at all based on capacity/experience (perspective).

An underlying value/judgement in the skeptic or even the empiricist's position is that one should be conservative about beliefs. Unless you can prove it - or offer some amount of support for it, you should avoid a certain belief. But avoid beliefs can also be idiotic. One can see the world as just so many Seurat-like points, and refuse to acknowledge gestalts in general until one receives proof of whatever kind.

Well, proof is not an objective standard. Proof is "to someone" who has their own standards of what should warrant belief. What is practical to (not from) the individual's perspective will always become belief. IMO, criticizing perspective x from perspective y rarely (if it's even actually possible) takes into consideration what is actually practical to x.

Every x develops many abstract "attractors" and "repulsors" (if you will), which are at a given time, indicative of the nature of x. As x experiences stuff, the myriad of abstract attractors and repulsors impact perception at a given time given the perceived context at that time. x may see a bird that somehow stimulates a strong feeling of positive re-enforcement in their belief in X, blah blah blah. On and on. x will do what it is that x does as x is an ongoing reaction to predisposition and circumstance, no matter what claims it makes at a given time.

If you hate being called pink for instance, it's practical for you to retaliate or deny (depending on what's apparently effective or convenient at the time) occurrences where you're called pink. A common method is to dehumanize the apparent offender, or even personify something that might have somehow led you think think it was implied that you are pink - to then dehumanize it.. hehe.

Meh, I'm rambling pardon.

I think I saw something once about how when columbus's ships arrived in america there were indians watching, but couldn't see the ships until the people got off of them because the pattern or notion "ship" simply didn't exist to them. They just blended in with the sea at first. I don't know how true it is, but in it I see a nugget of truth regardless - about patterns.

 

[Doreen]

What if you lack the experience or capacity to recognize them?

This issue would, it seems to me, be a factor in deciding if someone had a pathological inability to recognize a pattern.

I think most patterns appear rather differently or not at all based on capacity/experience (perspective).

Right. But my point is that if you see a pattern that you cannot prove to others (satisfaction) you are open to the judgment 'deluded'. I think the opposite syndrome needs to be recognized, since it exists, and also considered possibly applying to oneself in situations where one is judging someone else deluded. Otherwise rationality would be recognizing as few patterns as possible, which I do not think is the case. Or to put it differently: if you have the negative judgment 'deluded' but do not have its opposite, you are, essentially, advocating a strategy of partial ignorance, where the person will refuse to notice (accept their own noticing) of patterns to avoid the one negative judgment. This would guarantee the highest notdeluded rating.

Well, proof is not an objective standard. Proof is "to someone" who has their own standards of what should warrant belief. What is practical to (not from) the individual's perspective will always become belief. IMO, criticizing perspective x from perspective y rarely (if it's even actually possible) takes into consideration what is actually practical to x.

I agree.

Every x develops many abstract "attractors" and "repulsors" (if you will), which are at a given time, indicative of the nature of x. As x experiences stuff, the myriad of abstract attractors and repulsors impact perception at a given time given the perceived context at that time. x may see a bird that somehow stimulates a strong feeling of positive re-enforcement in their belief in X, blah blah blah. On and on. x will do what it is that x does as x is an ongoing reaction to predisposition and circumstance, no matter what claims it makes at a given time.

I think I get this and I think, based on that, I agree.

I think I saw something once about how when columbus's ships arrived in america there were indians watching, but couldn't see the ships until the people got off of them because the pattern or notion "ship" simply didn't exist to them. They just blended in with the sea at first. I don't know how true it is, but in it I see a nugget of truth regardless - about patterns.

Which should add a serious degree of humility before one squawks a finger pointing cry of 'delusion' at another. That person you think is deluded may have seen ships before, made a connection to canoes that you were incapable of or have some other experience/skill difference that helped them catch a pattern you can't (yet).

 

[wesmorris]

This issue would, it seems to me, be a factor in deciding if someone had a pathological inability to recognize a pattern.

Surely.

Right. But my point is that if you see a pattern that you cannot prove to others (satisfaction) you are open to the judgment 'deluded'.

For sure.

Of course you could adopt indifference towards such judgments, but it's not always entirely effective.

I think the opposite syndrome needs to be recognized, since it exists, and also considered possibly applying to oneself in situations where one is judging someone else deluded.

But if you're in that condition you can't consider it! 'You're right, fuck everyone else' is basically the thing no?

Otherwise rationality would be recognizing as few patterns as possible, which I do not think is the case.

Well, technically I think it would be "recognizing patterns that others can and do recognize", no?

Or to put it differently: if you have the negative judgment 'deluded' but do not have its opposite, you are, essentially, advocating a strategy of partial ignorance, where the person will refuse to notice (accept their own noticing) of patterns to avoid the one negative judgment. This would guarantee the highest notdeluded rating.

Well you'd certainly be advocating "don't think outside my box, bitch" which is probably a very bad thing, except of course for those who choose it.

I've been calling the condition I think you're describing as "unbound ego" for a few years now, if I follow you correctly.

Which should add a serious degree of humility before one squawks a finger pointing cry of 'delusion' at another. That person you think is deluded may have seen ships before, made a connection to canoes that you were incapable of or have some other experience/skill difference that helped them catch a pattern you can't (yet).

Well, you'd think so - but the deal is people don't necessarily say what they mean, and many people's egos simply don't allow for humility in this form. I generally try to practice some humility, but then find myself violating it unwittingly. Then I end up thinking: to communicate, ah - the arrogance. And like most things, I find it beautiful and potentially frightening simultaneously. Which of the two is at a given moment, most prevalent - usually a matter of choice.

 

[Doreen]

Of course you could adopt indifference towards such judgments, but it's not always entirely effective.

Yes, some people demand indifference. I have a learning curve, but I get there. I am not so much complaining 'on the ground' but trying to show the problematic metaposition. Essentially the one with the smallest subset of beliefs is the least deluded. Perhaps, but their paring down has probably made them an idiot.

But if you're in that condition you can't consider it! 'You're right, fuck everyone else' is basically the thing no?

I think people could have clearer sets. Here is what I believe and these are my guesses as to why I do. Here's a bunch of stuff I have no idea about. Here's some stuff other people believe and I am skeptical, but they very well may not be deluded, given this or that historical example I am aware of. And so on. There should, it seeems to me, be a huge buffer realm. But there isn't. You are a godless sinner. You are a deluded moron. Wow. Such a binary world. I don't think the binaries know themselves very well.

Well, technically I think it would be "recognizing patterns that others can and do recognize", no?

In a world of theists the atheist is in a funny position then. But you do have a point. But I disagree. See, it would be that person who has the smallest subset in that larger set. Each pattern recognition puts you at risk of being seen as or being deluded. So you might as well pare down.

UNLESS........

It is acknowleged that there is an opposite pathology: endemic pattern denial. Or inability to notice gestalts. To toss out a couple of temporary names.

Well you'd certainly be advocating "don't think outside my box, bitch" which is probably a very bad thing, except of course for those who choose it.

I am quite srue the beliefs serves some ecological purpose. I am just pointing out the social and individual consequences of not keeping the endemic pattern denial pathology on the table at the same time as delusions are on the table. I have little hope for certain people. On the other hand I think some might realize the sillyness inherent in rewarding paring down without some counterbalance. A counterbalancing that, I think, encourages humility in relation to what could have facilly been dismissed as delusions.

I've been calling the condition I think you're describing as "unbound ego" for a few years now, if I follow you correctly.

It's not a name I would give it, but perhaps you could define this.

Well, you'd think so - but the deal is people don't necessarily say what they mean, and many people's egos simply don't allow for humility in this form. I generally try to practice some humility, but then find myself violating it unwittingly.

I am not suggesting that people set up a little dictator in their heads that yells 'remember, humility' whenever we judge others as deluded. I am hoping for an aha that leads to a little humility, and perhaps some minimal recognition that the best way to avoid delusion leads to idiocy.

Then I end up thinking: to communicate, ah - the arrogance. And like most things, I find it beautiful and potentially frightening simultaneously. Which of the two is at a given moment, most prevalent - usually a matter of choice.

True, trying to exact any change in others is pretty arrogant - not in terms of 'who the fuck am I?' but rather in terms of 'where the fuck did I get the idea I had that magical skill?'

 

[wesmorris]

Yes, some people demand indifference. I have a learning curve, but I get there. I am not so much complaining 'on the ground' but trying to show the problematic metaposition. Essentially the one with the smallest subset of beliefs is the least deluded. Perhaps, but their paring down has probably made them an idiot.

Lol, I getcha. You're calling me stupid!!!!! lol, sorry kidding but couldn't help myself.

I think people could have clearer sets. Here is what I believe and these are my guesses as to why I do. Here's a bunch of stuff I have no idea about. Here's some stuff other people believe and I am skeptical, but they very well may not be deluded, given this or that historical example I am aware of. And so on. There should, it seeems to me, be a huge buffer realm. But there isn't. You are a godless sinner. You are a deluded moron. Wow. Such a binary world. I don't think the binaries know themselves very well.

Well I think many people do have fairly clear sets, but it really requires a certain mental faculty that I'm not sure is present in enough people to be a realistic expectation. It's not necessarily that they couldn't, but that they won't because of how they formed over the years. It's not necessarily even intelligence, but a function of ego as I see it. I also think it could be argued that the binaries know themselves better than anyone. Meh.

As I see it, everyone is binary some of the time, but it's temporary. Today I might think you're a fucking tard, but tomorrow maybe you're a genius. Some hang onto these labels longer than others for a variety of generally selfish reasons.... which brings me to something related and sort of interesting to me at least:

I think people have a hard time determining what is meant from what is said. It's quite the challenge to read between the lines. If I call you a selfish bitch there are a gazillion things I could mean by it - but the term resonates with the recipient's comprehension of the term and all to often, that's as far as it goes in their mind. People use the words of others to their political advantage, rather than a real attempt to relate to what meaning underlies those words... a real attempt to relate to the other's humanity. This is perfectly natural, but not often particularly constructive if one really intends to communicate with others. Of course, it's all perfectly natural and to be honest, it's not very goddamned easy a lot of the time to put enough work into a conversation to really advance mutual comprehension or whatever the point is in the specific case.

Sorry if I've entirely derailed your point. Obviously I talk too much and sometimes about apparently random things.

In a world of theists the atheist is in a funny position then. But you do have a point. But I disagree. See, it would be that person who has the smallest subset in that larger set. Each pattern recognition puts you at risk of being seen as or being deluded. So you might as well pare down.

That occured to me just after posting actually, so yeah I think I see you're right there.

UNLESS........

It is acknowleged that there is an opposite pathology: endemic pattern denial. Or inability to notice gestalts. To toss out a couple of temporary names.

I'm going to have to process this a bit more. I think I get it then I read it again and ponder if I do.

It's not a name I would give it, but perhaps you could define this.

Well I think I've misunderstood you a bit and need to think some more, perhaps sleep on it before going further.

But it seems to me that the best way to avoid delusion to do the best you can to validate what you believe and not take your own opinion so seriously as to quash those of others who may (or may not) understand something you don't.

I admit this doesn't necessarily address the best way to ensure others don't find you delusional though.

 

[glaucon]

wes!

Still diggin into this one eh?
.. nice to see you.

In a world of theists the atheist is in a funny position then. But you do have a point. But I disagree. See, it would be that person who has the smallest subset in that larger set. Each pattern recognition puts you at risk of being seen as or being deluded. So you might as well pare down.

That occured to me just after posting actually, so yeah I think I see you're right there.

Interestingly, despite the respect I have for both you wes, and Doreen, I have to disagree here.

My reason being: delusion cannot be defined merely by democratic enumeration......

 

[Doreen]

Lol, I getcha. You're calling me stupid!!!!! lol, sorry kidding but couldn't help myself.

Actually I don't really know if you are pared down or not or to what degree. But I am glad you took this well. In case I do draw some nasty conclusion later.

But it seems to me that the best way to avoid delusion to do the best you can to validate what you believe and not take your own opinion so seriously as to quash those of others who may (or may not) understand something you don't.

This sounds like a mild version of what I am criticizing. I am not sure one need second guess oneself, at least consciously or in some organized way. I think this is a fear of not paring down or has a similar result. 1) trusting oneself to see new patterns can lead to all sorts of good stuff. 2) consensus can be deluded in omission - yet another stab at a label 3) some obvious things are very hard to validate - the existence of other minds. I mean really, a good nap is better time spent than feeling one needs to validate that one. Note I said need: others might get a kick out of trying and the attempt might have some useful biproducts.

I admit this doesn't necessarily address the best way to ensure others don't find you delusional though.

If other people do not find you delusional, you are probably disconnected or keeping mum about stuff.

 

[Doreen]

My reason being: delusion cannot be defined merely by democratic enumeration......

I don't think it is either. But it seemed Wes did, so I stayed on that as part of trying to get him to consider my

syndrome that is opposite delusion

and also pathological.

 

[swarm]

there might be things in the world that might exist at this very moment, but we humans decide they don't just because we are not smart yet to figure out the way to prove their existence.

Are there things we don't know? Sure.
Are there things we haven't yet discovered? Sure.

Have we ever, after thousands of years of search, found a single object of religious fantasy like a god or even lesser objects like a mere imp or soul? No.

Is there the least reason to believe this will change? No.

Does this lack of evidence lend the least support to any supernatural claims? Not at all.

Your example starts with actual evidence "a disease that used to be the main cause of death of women who gave birth" which merely isn't understood. A physical thing, not a non physical one.

You have yet to even get to the evidence stage yet.

 

[swarm]

Originally Posted by swarm
A dellusion is a dellusion because you really believe it in spite of the lack of evidence, sound familiar yet? Does it sound like "faith?" Sure does to me.

Absolutely incorrect.

Random House Dictionary: a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact

American Heritage Dictionary: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy: A false belief held despite strong evidence against it; self-deception.

Online Etymology Dictionary: Technically, delusion is a belief that, though false, has been surrendered to and accepted by the whole mind as a truth; illusion is an impression that, though false, is entertained provisionally on the recommendation of the senses or the imagination, but awaits full acceptance and may not influence action.

Evidence is always some kind of community accessible set of repeatable experiences.

So the evidence of your senses "is always some kind of community accessible set of repeatable experiences?" I guess when you are alone you have no evidence?

Evidence is any collection of facts concerning objects or events that can be used to determine or demonstrate the truth of assertions made about said objects or events.

For an object, the strongest evidence is the object itself which provides the most clear and compelling evidence for its existence.

Events, being ephemeral, generally use facts concerning object which can be used to exclude other reasonable explanations. For example, if you have milk on your lips and examination reveals milk in your stomach, then it is reasonable to conclude you drank some milk.

Community approval is useful for publishing your evidence and gaining acceptance for your conclusions. That the community can enter into debate about the nature and meaning of the facts, but it is because the facts relate to something actual. It is not the community which makes them actual as you imply.

You can have many correct beliefs that you cannot produce enough evidence for to get your experience/interpretation accepted by the community.

If your "correct" beliefs are correct about something, how is it that they fail to provide evidence of this correctness?

With your definition faith, delusion and a whole set of rational beliefs will all get lumped together.

Not at all. I'm merely pointing out faith fits the definition of delusion. Rationally held, supportable beliefs fail to fit the definition. Part of something being a rational belief is that it is dismissed if it proves unsupportable.

It is not an assumption, as detailed above, nor is it faith. I actually am and can prove it to my satisfaction and the satisfaction of any reasonable person and even most unreasonable persons. Even when they are trying to pretend I don't exist it is pretty ease to show they actually know I exist. [bwahahaha!]

No, you can't.

Sure I can. I just did it, though I expect the self evident proof of your own reply is too subtle for you. Step a little closer and I'll prove it in a far more unreasonable physical manner which irrational people like your self have more trouble dodging.

I could prove that the Beatles exist and are playing together by producing four guys who look about right.

Your false claim that they are the Beatles doesn't mean the four guys you are picking on don't exist. This god stuff really cripples your understanding, doesn't it?

this is no evidence it is the same person.

And yet that person would still exist.

And given that you are a materialist and all the matter has changed, well, it ain't that other you.

I never said I continue to exist for ever. I just said I currently exist as of this moment. Be as disceptive as you care to with the phrase "same person." Same or not, each of me exists in the moment for which existence is claimed.

Originally Posted by God
You people always objectify me and treat me like I'm a magic wishing rock and like there aren't consequences to your ego centric demands. Sheesh! Do you like the sky as it currently is? Did you even notice? How about now?

You are halllucinating a forest here. You have created a group 'you people'.
Please tell us which group of people you meant here that Wes belongs to.

Mortals.

Ha! I just changed your sex. Did you notice? Of course not. Freaking mortals never notice anything.

 

[swarm]

To the particular mind - it was water

No, it was merely thought of as water which is not anything like the same as it was water. "It" didn't change. Only how it was considered changed and this is how people react to illusions. They don't say "wow the water turned into heat waves." Instead they saw "ah, I mistook those heat waves for water."

In the case of a phenomenon that can't be further researched

How can something still be a phenomena and yet not be accessible for further research?

The point is: it's all in the mind

Actually the point is that it isn't.

Because further information was gleened by say more closely examining what is happening. The illusion is dispelled in the mind by understanding what is actually being experienced.

To me it's also fair to argue that there's no end to the cycle you establish with your "gleenage".

So? That there is more information doesn't mean there isn't information already understood.

It's water

Actually it was heat waves, but we'll go with water here...

but water is molecules, molecules are atoms, blah blah blah. Where does the reality begin because all the illusions have been washed away?

That we have overlapping names for something, each of which has its own distinctions, that doesn't mean that the other words are wrong within their scope.

Water is informal masses of the substance. Water molecules describes the smallest discrete unit which retains the charcteristic atomic configuration for the substance.

Atoms comprise the molecules, but are distinct entities if seperated with different properties.

There are no illusions here any more than describing al elephants trunk means the elephant is an illusion.

Further, once you settle on "this is reality", don't you seriously risk missing important shit?

Not if you bother to keep checking.

I mean, it was apparently "reality" for a very long time that leaches cure people of stuff that they don't.

yes and they never bothered to check carefully, did they?

It's 'reality' for god folks that god is the source of 'reality', blah blah blah.

Obviously not.

Faith is also when you believe something on weak evidence or even strong but not entirely conclusive evidence. As skepticism can be applied rationally to any belief, it's a matter of degree as I see it. With any firm belief lies a smidgen of faith, even if one is too egotistical to see it. It's beautiful though, if you can see it.

Substantiated beliefs have some evidence to lend them support. On the basis of that evidence it is reasonable to hold them until there is contravening evidence.

Knowledge has been so well substantiated that there is no current possibility of contravening evidence, but if it does come to that, then the knowledge is changed or discarded. Evidence is god.

Pure faith has nothing to back it. It is like saying you won the new Qerg lotto. Sure since there is no Qerg and no new Qerg lotto, it can't be "proved" you didn't win it - but until you cough up some evidence your claim is going to be dismissed out of hand as having no basis for consideration.

To a god-person, the validity of the bible might be unquestionable

Refusing to question it doesn't mean that it is valid or unquestionable.

You seem to think your sense of validity applies to everything. It doesn't, except to you.

It is not my "sense of validity." That is is actually valid is that is does apply universally. The "my sense" part is what conclusions or implications I might draw.

Others don't map to reality as you see it, sure.

Reality is not a matter of opinion.

So levitation is impossible?

If by levitating you mean me just thinking myself in the air, it has proven impossible so far and there is no known means by which it could function.

Are you sure you're trying hard enough?

Yep, completely.

Agreed

Yay!

but irrelevant.

I disagree. All religion and most "spirituality" is founded on the either implicit or explicit assumption that belief causes existence.

Uhm, you're telling me what is and isn't interesting and then claiming I'm confused? Check yourself?

Oh, my! Let me rephrase so I don't cause you so much tribulation.

Actually I've found its not as interesting as it seems once you get past the special pleading by the theists. You can't undeniably contradict any fantasy claim.

Of course you can't undeniably contradict any fantasy claim

Yay!

but most are far less powerful than the notion of god

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "powerful," but fundamentally they are all fantasies and one is no more real than any of the others.

Obviously it's not interesting to you though since you wouldn't spend any time discussing it at all.

God? Couldn't care less. It just happens to be an extremely popular delusion where the fact that it is a delusion is soooo obvious that those who cling to it are endlessly amusing and it gives a nice means of discussing concepts I am actually interested in.

The bottom line on "god" is:

1) as long as god is not evil, there is absolutely nothing to worry about and if god is evil, then I'm screwed any way.

2) since there is zero evidence for god then the possibilities are:
a) god doesn't care to be evident
b) there is no god
c) god isn't able to be evident.

Either way, god doesn't actually have any relevance to my existence.

Being a pragmatist I go with the current lack of evidence as being most readily explained by no god since that alleviates any need to let religious nuts govern my life and I don't have to carry elaborate superstitions around in my head.

99% of religion is based on the tacit understanding that god is actually evil while pretending he is "good" and personally I rather burn than serve such a god. How about you?

(The other 100%* is based on greed, avarice, lust for ill gotten power and wealth, jealousy, envy, hate, bigotry, and about every other vice you can think of all candy coated as "love." *There may be rounding errors in the total.)

I have no need to prove such a thing. If you believe it, you have to deal with the consequences.

Don't anger Qerg or god burns in hell.

Survival? Why? Why should survival matter?

Survival is what drives evolution. Traits which enhance survival tend to be selected for during die backs.

said you'd consider examples of

"What I do propose though is that there are non-physical objects that are part of my existence"

Such as what?

I tentatively believe you exist, yes.

The evidence suggests you more than tentatively believe.

Immediate and direct apprehension is sweet and stuff, but it's not always reliable - illusions and delusions and such.

No worries, I double check my sources and use verification and error correction as needed.

No I don't think there is any authority whatsoever besides reality itself

What did you think you were composed of?

You are of course, utterly insane

No. I'm quite sane. Thanks for asking. But if you want to go into all of that, start another thread.

Indeed, unless of course it's wrong - like you tell the god folks they are.

Do explain how direct and immediate apprehension of yourself could be wrong?

Lol. Please convince kim jong il

Why? He doesn't doubt my existence so far as I know. Neither do you, obviously.

Your mom.

My mom is dead.

It's not "self-denying", it's realization of self.

The realization comes because the proposition is self denying.

The proposition: "I don't exist." cannot be put forth by a non existent person.

I suppose we'll have to disagree, as I think your comprehension is seriously lacking here and I'm sure likewise.

Yes so you say.

And despite the following noise, you just tacitly agreed.

If you're locked in a cave with no form of communication I think you might find it more challenging.

What? My apprehension of my existence? How would being locked in a cave change anything about my direct apprehension of myself? And locking me in a cave is tacit acknowledgment of my existence.

So how is it exactly that rationality is absolutely established?

Absolutely is just a weasel word. Rationality is established by making use of reason and its tools like logic and parsimony, by using observation, verification, error correction and the informed agreement of other rational people, and by eschewing that which has been shown to be false and maintaining skepticism concerning what is unproven, and finally by being willing to based one's positions an the evidence available.

Oh by the way about those virgins...

Don't blame me for the virgins! You could have evolved like some wasps and mated before you left the egg sack but oh no, you have to have a childhood were you aren't yet fertile. Sheesh!


Built it myself thanks. I DID buy their components and do stuff with them.

"you guys"? Do you think I'm like

A believer? Yep. Sensitive about it too. Almost like deep down you know its hooey and are kind of embarressed about the whole thing.

I have no actual experience of you, nor you I. It's virtual.

You have mediated experience of me. You know there is a person involved, since AI isn't up to snuff yet, but your only direct is experience is what is on your monitor.

a personality simulator developed

Back when I was still presenting papers on such things I argued, and I feel argued persuasively, that there is no real difference between a fully effective personality "simulator" and an actual personality. The only difference is the hardware/wetware on which the sim is being run. I went on to further suggest that AI was failing, and is still failing, because you can't do it piecemeal. There is only "I." Any AI must be its own personality before it can succeed in actually being intelligent.

 

[swarm]

No

Then your sentence:"If you don't offer anything else but your opinions, one can very easily be forthright ....." Doesn't make sense to me as you aren't being forthright.

forthrightly state that you are simply offering hearsay

It is by definition impossible for me to offer hearsay about myself.

Hearsay is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

I might be mistaken or even misleading, but it can't be hearsay if it is from me and directly about me.

Your actions determine the validity of your argument

My actions do not cause you to be less than forthright. That is your choice.

regardless ...

Could you at least make your cop out more interesting?

You can't even state your epistemological stance...

I frequently make plain my epistemological and other stances. Here is a 5 second rundown...

Realist
Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief in a reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. Philosophers who profess realism also typically believe that truth consists in a belief's correspondence to reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_realism

Naturalist
"Nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."...practical methods for acquiring knowledge ... requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.[2] Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

Empiricist
...knowledge arises from experience. ... [It] emphasizes those aspects of scientific knowledge that are closely related to evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world, rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Pragmatist
Pragmatism is the philosophy of considering practical consequences and real effects to be vital components of meaning and truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism

I hold with correspondence as the main determiner of truth with coherence as a fall back position if correspondence isn't available.

For spiritual and ethical matters I'm informed by Epicureanism and Buddhism.

On the matter of god I'm an ignostic: Ignosticism, or igtheism, is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism

That should get you up to speed, now what is your next excuse?

 

[wesmorris]

when I say I tentatively agree, I mean "i agree for now". I don't presume I'll have a reason to change my mind, but I don't exclude it. i merely specify "tentatively" because people seem to attach permanence to flat labels like "I agree" - as if it's absolutely impossible for things to change. I'd say "highly improbably" that I'd come to have good reason to doubt your existence, but I won't proclaim it permanently impossible. It seems to me that's exactly what you're doing though, basically proclaiming proof of a negative.

the term "tentatively" in the way I use it might seem redundant... I see it as requisite of skepticism to note it when talking in absolutes.

 

[Doreen]

If your "correct" beliefs are correct about something, how is it that they fail to provide evidence of this correctness?

Really. Before you read my response, think about this for a second. The implication is that if you are correct about a belief you should be able to provide the community with what they consider evidence. Can you truly think of no counterexamples?

Here's mine: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Fibromyalgia - people who suffered from this were told they were hypocondriac, lazy, faking, etc. Despite this many continued to assert they were sick. Others bowed to medical opinion and suffered doubly.

Much, much later the Epstein Barr virus was found and the medical community began taking it seriously as a physical problem.

In the long interim period those people were not deluded. They were in fact quite rational.

There are many phenomena and interpretations of phenomena that have had similar interim periods. The example I gave deals includes subjective experience - though, in fact, these people did have some common symptoms that could be tested objectively. But there are example of people believing in things completely external to them and only later was this proven correct because of changes in technology, wider interest and other changes.

Humility raises the issue of whether we are in an interim period in relation to other beliefs. Of course if we know the reasoning of someone else, we may have stronger reasons to be skeptical. If they think they are a fish because they like to swim and seem to mean this in a literal sense and do not seem aware of why we doubt they are a fish and cannot work with our objections, well, that's one thing.

 

[wesmorris]

wes!

Still diggin into this one eh?
.. nice to see you.

Fun thread, yes. Same to you sah!

I just got called a theist! Woot! lol.

Interestingly, despite the respect I have for both you wes, and Doreen, I have to disagree here.

My reason being: delusion cannot be defined merely by democratic enumeration......

Oh sure it can. The reality of whether or not you are delusion doesn't matter if everyone you encounter presumes you are so and burns you at the stake you treacherous heathen. BURN him!!!!!! BURRRRRRRRRRRRRRNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[swarm]

At what point does not noticing patters become a delusion?

When your noticing of patterns no longer requires any actual pattern.

An underlying value/judgement in the skeptic or even the empiricist's position is that one should be conservative about beliefs. Unless you can prove it - or offer some amount of support for it, you should avoid a certain belief.

Yes one should be conservative about accepting unsupported beliefs. For example just because some one claims garnets purify the blood, you shouldn't adopt this as your means of treating snake bite unless you can establish that claim is true.

But the underlying error in the non skeptic and non empiricist position is the conflation of belief with truth You don't have to avoid beliefs. Just stop pretending your mere belief in them makes them true. For example believing in god doesn't mean there is any god to believe in.

Delusion: belief in something without enough justification.

Not quite. Delusion: A false belief held despite strong evidence against it; self-deception.

_______: the pathological reluctance to notice patterns.

If the patterns are real, just point them out.

If you point them out and no one else see that, then perhaps you are projecting the pattern instead of just seeing it.

 

[swarm]

inability to recognize a pattern.

My experience is that people see into stuff what isn't there far more often than they refuse to see what is there when its pointed out.

if you see a pattern that you cannot prove to others (satisfaction) you are open to the judgment 'deluded'.

How do you know its a valid pattern if others can't see it? Humans are skewed towards seeing patterns. Its been shown over and over that ee see patterns were there blatantly aren't any, particularly cyclic data like random walks. If I couldn't get some one to see the patterns I saw, I would be very suspicious about those patterns.

rationality would be recognizing as few patterns as possible

No, parsimony is choosing the simplest explanation which accounts for all the data. Oversimplification is as grievous an error as piling on irrelevant accounts. That said, oversimplification tends to be easier to repair than overcomplexification. So if one must err, purposefully erring on the side of simplicity is preferred.

I agree.

I think I get this and I think, based on that, I agree.

Which should add a serious degree of humility before one squawks a finger pointing cry of 'delusion' at another. That person you think is deluded may have seen ships before, made a connection to canoes that you were incapable of or have some other experience/skill difference that helped them catch a pattern you can't (yet).[/QUOTE]

Which should add a serious degree of humility before one...

Starts going on about gods? Man wouldn't that be nice.

Just talking in general here, but godders always amaze me. Take evolution. Here is something for which we literally have tons of evidence, but they can't accept that. However the inexplicable appearance of magic sky fairies who spontaneously create whole people from mud and get pissed if a guy rides the baloney pony, that they swallow hook line and sinker. And then they get huffy when the word delusion comes out. Sheesh!